Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Minutes - 07/23/01 Work Session MINUTES Eugene City Council Work Session McNutt Room--Eugene City Hall July 23, 2001 6:30 p.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: Betty Taylor, David Kelly, Nancy Nathanson, Gary Rayor, Bonny Bettman, Par Fart. COUNCILORS ABSENT: Scott Meisner, Gary Pap~. CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION Mayor Torrey called the meeting to order. A. Items from City Council, Mayor, and City Manager Ms. Taylor said she was receiving calls about traffic as well as about the PeaceHealth situation, and expressed her appreciation to Ms. Bettman, Mr. Kelly, and City Manager Jim Johnson for the hours they spent negotiating with the hospital. She was disappointed with PeaceHealth's decision, and thought Mr. Johnson's statement, as reflected in The Register-Guard, that it appeared the hospital was going to move north, was premature. Ms. Taylor hoped the City was paying attention to the downstream effects from new development. Mr. Kelly thanked Ms. Taylor for her acknowledgment. He had shared her dismay at Mr. Johnson's statement as it appeared to be in direct opposition to adopted council policy. Mr. Fart noted a letter to the editor from a 13-year resident concerned about the effects of growth. He said the council worried and wrung its hands about development and people continued to move here. He was concerned when people moved into the community and then did not want the city to grow further. He hoped his children got to grow up in Eugene. Ms. Nathanson said Ms. Taylor's remarks reminded her of several e-mail and phone messages she had received suggesting that the council direct PeaceHealth to relocate to various sites. She said that the council did not have the power to compel a private party to spend money to build a building in a particular way or on a particular piece of property. It could influence how the development occurred, but not force or compel something. She suggested that citizens write to PeaceHealth with their ideas, because the issue did not merely concern the City of Eugene. Ms. Nathanson thanked the manager for the staff responses she had received in response to her input. She appreciated knowing her input was received and taken into consideration. MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 23, 2001 Page 1 Work Session Ms. Bettman reminded citizens who might be viewing that the City would hold a public forum on PeaceHealth the following evening. Responding to Mr. Farr's comments, Ms. Bettman said that the issue should not be looked at in terms of growth versus no growth, but smart growth versus expensive, unsustainable growth. Mr. Farr concurred. Mr. Johnson reported that Qwest had decided to sue Portland over the subject of franchise fees. Eugene received $1.7 million annually from Qwest in the form of franchise fees. City attorneys from across the state were meeting in Salem the next day to discuss a coordinated response. Mr. Johnson said that the public forum on PeaceHealth was at St. Mary's Church from 7 p.m. to 9 p.m. Mr. Rayor said he appreciated that the council was a deliberative body, and pointed out that to merely explore an idea did not mean it would become a reality. He said that the events leading to the Mike Kelley settlement occurred before he or Mr. Kelly were elected, and he did not think the public understood that the council was not involved in such decisions, which were heard by the Hearings Official and Planning Commission. For that reason, he thought the Gang of 9 cartoons related to that topic were off-base. Mayor Torrey reported that August 8, 2001, was the council date for action on the PeaceHealth issue. Mayor Torrey noted Scott Meisner's absence from the meeting of July 25, and said that action on the item regarding transportation projects was rescheduled for August 6. Mayor Torrey referred to a television program broadcast on Community Television (CTV) on July 4 and said he was offended that taxpayer money was used to support such broadcasts. He acknowledged he did not know the free speech ramifications involved, but inquired of legal counsel how, under the City's contract with CTV, it knew if CTV users have exceeded the test of free or protected speech and what the City could do to ensure that people do not produce or show programs that violate State or federal laws. Mayor Torrey noted the recall petition being circulated for Bonny Bettman, and said he would not support such an effort because of a councilor's position on a given issue. He hoped the recall did not succeed and said he would work against it if the petitioner collected sufficient signatures to proceed. Mr. Rayor said he generated a vision of an alternative for the West Eugene Parkway for council consideration on July 25. He expected criticism of the proposal but did not want to get into the esoterica of what caused sprawl. Ms. Nathanson said she hoped to have a chance to compare her proposal and Mr. Rayor's proposal prior to the meeting because she thought the proposals had similarities. Ms. Bettman thanked the mayor for his comments and said she had not supported the recall effort for him for the same reasons. B. Work Session: Draft Stream Corridor Acquisition Study Public Works Director Kurt Corey and Tim Bingham of Lane Council of Governments joined the council for the item. MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 23, 2001 Page 2 Work Session Mr. Corey provided background on the Draft Stream Corridor Acquisition Study, which provided policy direction to broaden the scope of stormwater management beyond conventional flood control services to include enhancement and preservation of water quality and stormwater-related natural resources. He noted the involvement of the Stormwater Department Advisory Committee in the development of a stormwater management strategy that included protection and restoration of open waterways, the council's approval of that recommendation, and the subsequent work done by staff on the study. Mr. Bingham provided a PowerPoint presentation on the study and the study recommendations. The presentation spoke to the study objectives, expected benefits, how the sites were selected, the criteria for their selection, how the study worked with other City programs, the suggested priority categories for acquisition, the nature of the acquired areas, the recommended priority acquisitions, and the recommended Tier I and II sites. Mr. Bingham briefly discussed the study's impact of the buildable lands inventory, saying that the 20-year requirements would still be met. The type of City ownership sould have an impact on the inventory. Staff was discussing updating the inventory through a monitoring mechanism. Mr. Bingham reviewed the financial implications of the study, indicating that the estimated costs for the 12 priority stream corridors ranged from $6,423,000 to $7,775,000, requiring an annual budget of $1,200,000 over five years and $600,000 over ten years. He reviewed two options for funding, which included a user fee approach and a combined user fee/systems development charge (SDC) approach. Mr. Bingham noted the public outreach received by staff and the impact that input had on the study in terms of the proposed acquisitions and funding approach recommended. He called attention to the Planning Commission's preference for a maximum five-year acquisition time frame and its interest in implementation flexiblity to allow for the inclusion of new, unknown sites. Mr. Bingham noted the next steps in the study process. Mayor Torrey called for council comments and questions. Mr. Rayor recalled that the council earlier discussed a user fee of 50 cents, and asked the implication of using that figure on the acquisition schedule. He asked how the acquisition program could result in lawsuits. He liked the fee title approach. Mr. Rayor asked how the program would help the City and developers addressed the ramifications of the Endangered Species Act listing of the salmon. Mr. Rayor urged the City to place a large display advertisement regarding the fee, what it is for, and the pros and cons of the fee. Mr. Rayor thought in general staff did an excellent job and was supportive of the recommendations. He feared, however, that the public outreach would not get to the end user, the payer of the fee. MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 23, 2001 Page 3 Work Session Mr. Farr asked for an explanation of the user fee, and who were the users. Mr. Corey said that the user fee appears on the water bill and reflected the user's stormwater use. He said that all citizens were the users. Mr. Farr asked how much money the fee would realize. Mr. Johnson anticipated revenues would be approximately $1 million annually. Mr. Farr recollected that the City tried to get user fees passed by the voters to support affordable housing and there was insufficient voter support. He said that the City Council needed to put the issue into perspective. The users were the taxpayer who would pay for the program. He thought the study's recommendations were admirable, but wanted the City to maintain a balance in the approach it took, noting the recent court losses related to the City's regulatory approach. Mr. Kelly thanked staff for its high-quality work on the proposal. He thought the report made it clear why the program was desirable. He believed it was worth 80 cents monthly to the average resident of Eugene to protect the stormwater going to the Willamette River. He thought the acquisition program was more important because of the court decisions Mr. Farr referenced. The open waterways ordinance was in limbo indefinitely, so it made sense to have some mechanism to protect stream corridors for the benefits called out in the study. Mr. Kelly pointed out that the point of Ballot Measure 7 was to make government pay compensation, and the program did just that. For that reason, he did not think the recommendations were related to the court cases cited by Mr. Farr. He thought the recommendations were responsive to the concerns voiced by Mr. Farr. He also thought implementation of the recommendations would add in a small way to the legacy of late City Engineer Les Lyle. Mr. Kelly asked if there was a mechanism to bond against future stormwater fees. Mr. Johnson thought it was possible. Assistant City Manager Jim Carlson said bonding was one method to accelerate the acquisition process. There were other ways to use existing resources that may be less expensive. Staff could continue to explore those options, which it had already begun to discuss. A revenue source to pay back those funds was needed. Ms. Nathanson said that all kinds of alarm bells went off in her head when she read the plan. She had initially supported the concept inherent in the study. It would be a wonderful benefit for people living near the stream corridors in the south hills, and it would also provide clean water benefits and habitat values. However, she believed there were people throughout the community who were getting irritated with the City Council over a variety of topics. She had concluded that this was a dangerous time to impose a new fee of this size. She said that the program would impact everyone in the city and should have been reviewed by other bodies in addition to the department advisory committees. She believed that the proposal should have first been reviewed by the Budget Committee before it was forwarded to the council. Ms. Nathanson expressed concern about the increase in costs over the initial program estimates. She noted the political atmosphere that currently exists, specifically referring to concerns expressed by residents regarding the method of funding the yard debris program. She said the City made a serious strategic error in imposing that fee before it discussed the rate adjustment issue; she thought the costs could have been offset or paid for if the rates were consolidated earlier. Ms. MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 23, 2001 Page 4 Work Session Nathanson suggested that, given the fact the PeaceHealth issue was unresolved, the need for transportation funding, and the general uncertainty about the economy, now was a bad time to impose the program. Ms. Taylor favored proceeding with the study recommendations, particularly those related to the Tier I/Tier II acquisitions. She preferred a combined user fee/SDC funding approach. She agreed with Ms. Nathanson that people would not be happy with another fee, particularly given public unhappiness about the yard debris fee. People were not sufficiently informed before the council decided on that fee. Ms. Taylor said that the City had a large amount in the Stormwater Fund already and suggested that it be used to underwrite the acquisition costs. Mr. Johnson indicated that the beginning cash balance in the fund was approximately $7 million, although much was earmarked for projects. Ms. Taylor thought that the connection to Stormwater Fund dollars was logical and appropriate. Ms. Bettman said protection of the waterways may be occurring in the south hills, but flooding occurs in the flatlands. It was the City's responsibility to manage the stormwater to reduce that flooding, and the proposal provided a proactive way to do so effectively. She said that those who pay the fee could reduce their fee by reducing their impervious surface; that benefited the community at large by reducing flooding and pollutant runoff. She appreciated the work that went into the study. She agreed with Mr. Kelly's comments regarding Mr. Lyle's contributions. Ms. Bettman asked the difference in management from a development rights approach versus outright acquisition. Ms. Bettman asked for information about a charge per-square-foot for commercial rates. Mr. Bingham discussed the development rights approach, saying that from the standpoint of making things work, it worked best through a conservation easement, which removed questions related to land use. Property owners could still count the acquisition area in development proposals for open space credit, for example, and in computing the total number of dwelling units that could be located on a site. From the City's point of view, conservation easements clouded things somewhat. City maintenance staff indicated that headaches related to management went down with a fee title approach, which made ownership status clear between the City and private property owners. Many of the properties in the south hills were relatively undeveloped, with low maintenance costs. Mr. Binghman thought that the conservation easement approach would work to the benefit of both the property owner and City in areas where the main objective was conservation versus intensive drainage management. Mr. Corey did not have information about commercial versus residential rates at hand. Responding to a question from Mayor Torrey, Mr. Johnson said that the council would have to give staff direction to proceed with condemnation if a property owner was not willing to sell. MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 23, 2001 Page 5 Work Session Mayor Torrey questioned whether the benefits from the proposal would equal its costs. He hoped people did not perceive the proposal to be a way for the City to purchase land for parks and open space use. He did not think that the people in north Eugene would be easily convinced that the proposal had benefits for them, given the lack of acquisitions in those areas. He suggested the public be asked to vote on the proposal. Mayor Torrey emphasized the need for education as the key to the success of the proposal. Mr. Farr said Ms. Nathanson and Mayor Torrey had already expressed his concerns. He asked what happened to streams traveling outside of Eugene into the county, pointing out Lane County was not proposing to take the same approach to stream protection as Eugene. He asked if, given that, the City was acting prematurely. Mr. Johnson said that there was much less urbanization at the urban growth boundary. After the streams left the city limits, State and federal rules took over. Mr. Farr suggested that Eugene was taking rules and regulations and expanding them to limits far beyond what was occurring around it. Mr. Corey reported that Lane County would soon be facing its National Pollutant Discharge Permit System Phase II permit, and it may or may not address the issue through that process. Mr. Farr reiterated that he did not oppose the concept, but he urged the council to balance the issues involved. He was worried the City was asking people to do too much and to pay too much. Mr. Kelly suggested that the council keep the magnitude of the program to the user in mind. If the council was considering a $5-$10 fee he would agree with the mayor's remarks, but he reiterated the fee was 80 cents per month. In response to the mayor's suggestion, Mr. Kelly noted the other fees administered by the City and asked if the council would go to the voters for approval of those fee increases as well. Speaking to Ms. Nathanson, Mr. Kelly thought that if the City did not enact the program now, most of the Tier I/Tier II acquisition sites would be developed and the potential for acquisition lost. He agreed with the need for education. He emphasized that the City was proposing to pay fair market values for acquisition. Regarding the increase in program costs, Mr. Kelly believed that the cost increase reflected the recommendation to take SDCs out of the fee equation, not an increase in total program costs. He concurred with Ms. Nathanson there would still be an increase in the direct costs to residents if the fee approach was taken, as opposed to the combination approach. Mr. Kelly emphasized the stream corridors were not being acquired for use as parks and open space for the south hills, but because they were needed for use as a natural stormwater conveyance system. Ms. Bettman said the community benefit was flood management, filtration for pollution, and protecting the community's larger waterways. She thought the proposal took the City a long way in those directions. Regarding the concept of a public vote, Ms. Bettman said that the proposal involved a stormwater conveyance system, similar to a road or other infrastructure, and said it did not make sense to seek a vote in this situation unless the City decided to seek similar votes for other infrastructure projects. She had been disappointed to hear the recommendation that SDCs MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 23, 2001 Page 6 Work Session not be used, and would favor Option B, with the direction the SDC issue be returned to the Stormwater Department Advisory Committee and possibly the Public Works Rates Advisory Committee for further work on the system definition and a determination of whether excess capacity existed for the possible establishment of a reimbursement fee. Ms. Nathanson noted her long-time support for the concept before the council but reiterated her concern that the political climate was not supportive. She said that the council had other priorities it needed to fund. Ms. Nathanson asked if a good case could be made that the study recommendations could assist with flood control citywide; if so, that should be made clear to the public. She asked if acquisition was more costly than a conservation easement and called for less costly alternatives, such as different funding methods, different management methods, or a combination of both. She questioned if it was possible to acquire, for example, 25 feet and purchase a conservation easement for the remainder of the land. Ms. Nathanson noted the results of the survey conducted by staff, saying that they did not give her confidence the majority of citizens would embrace the program. Mr. Rayor agreed with the remarks made by Ms. Nathanson. He asked about the current protections that existed for waterways under City, State, or federal law and requested that information in the form of a matrix. He thought that would inform the council of the value added by the proposed program. He asked if the City was duplicating existing law. Mr. Johnson noted the additional protections created by the planned unit development and conditional use permit processes. Mayor Torrey asked if the council was prepared to ask the City Manager to proceed with condemnation. Mayor Torrey asked what the minimum buffer size requirement was for open waterways that would meet the criteria for stormwater usage of the funds. Ms. Taylor, seconded by Mr. Kelly, moved to direct the City Manager to proceed with the recommended acquisitions and authorize the City Manager to initiate stormwater user fees to pay for 75 percent of the program costs and to pay for the remainder of the program (25 percent) with systems development charges. Mr. Farr remained convinced that imposing new fees on residents was not the correct approach. He did not want to vote on the issue at this time. Mr. Farr, seconded by Ms. Nathanson, moved to table the motion. The vote on the motion to table was a 3:3 tie; Ms. Nathanson, Mr. Farr, and Mr. Rayor MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 23, 2001 Page 7 Work Session voting yes, Ms. Taylor, Mr. Kelly, and Ms. Bettman voting no. Mayor Torrey voted in support of the motion, which passed on a 4:3 vote. Mr. Rayor explained he voted to table because the council asked many detailed questions he wanted to hear answers to. Mr. Kelly asked that staff keep a scorecard of waterways lost to development. He thought that planned unit developments did not protect waterways adequately. Ms. Nathanson, seconded by Mr. Farr, moved to direct the City Manager to research additional acquisition and funding methods and return to the City Council with additional alternatives. The motion passed, 4:2; Ms. Bettman and Mr. Kelly voting no. Mr. Rayor reiterated his interest in finding better way of informing the public about fee increases. The meeting adjourned at 7:52 p.m. Respectfully submitted, James R. Johnson City Manager (Recorded by Kimberly Young) MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 23, 2001 Page 8 Work Session